courageous personnel have been in taking on assignments that in the past never had been taken on before. and you've -- you have abeably presented to us why that's important. why it's important -- ably presented to us why that's important. my question is very similar to the one of congressman schneider's. that was how do you make that analysis between risk and presence. what are some of the obstacles in making that. how do we move forward with that and how does the congress understand some of those -- that kind of balance? >> well, this is my ongoing hope that we can get it more right than wrong. let me just make a few points because it's an issue that i hope this committee takes very seriously. first of all, you've got to remember that when we talk about the state department and dip lo

hatic facilities, that covers, we are the umbrella for so many other agencies in our government. if we were not there, many of those agencies representatives -- agencies' representatives would have a difficult time being there. we are the diplomatic presence that permits us to pursue law enforcement objectives, intelligence objectives, military objectives, and so much more. so it's not just about us sitting around and say, you know, do we really want our diplomats at risk? it's ok, what are the equities of the rest of the government that would be effective if we decided we had to close shop because the risk was too great? i want to stress that because i don't think you can understand, at least from my perspective, how difficult the calculation is without knowing that it's not just about the state department and usaid. secondly, i don't think we can retreat from these hard places.

we have to harden our security presence but we can't retreat. we've got to be there. we've got to be picking up intelligence information, building relationships and if we had a whole table of some of our most experienced ambassadors sitting here today, they would be speaking with a loud chorus, you know, yes, help us be secure but don't shut us down, don't keep us behind high walls in bunkers so we can't get out and figure out what's going on. that's the balance i've been trying to make for four years. >> we only have time for two more questions. we'll end at 5:00. we go to mr. cook from california. >> thank you, madam secretary. first of all, i want to compliment you. it's been a long, long day, to survive all these questions, it's been tough. i want to talk to you about marine security guards. and this is from somebody who

spent a long time in the marine corps. not under the cognizance of the d.o.d. or state department. you had things about additional marine security guards -- guard detachments and the question is about whether it's prudent to task -- to organize those assets that are organic to you and perhaps put them in those areas that have the high threat level? if you could answer that, i'd appreciate that. >> congressman, it's a very astute observation. i mean, we believe that we need to increase both our marine security guard detachments as well as our diplomatic security and create more synergy and cooperation in these high threat posts.

the marine security guards, as you know, are very, very much a presence on more than 150 of our posts. and in order to give them the facilities an support they need they need a marine house. they need to be very close to the embassy. because as -- if you saw the recent movie "argo," you saw the marines destroying classified material when the mob was outside in tehran. they are experts at that. they are people that are totally relied on by the entire mission. but as i said earlier, historically their job has not been personal security. so we've got to figure out, working with d.o.d., particularly with the marines, you know, and most of them are very young you know, i take pictures with them everywhere i go. usually the sergeant is older,

more experienced, but most of the marines on duty are quite young. we've got to figure out how we really take advantage of their presence and that's a conversation we're in the midst of with our d.o.d. colleagues. with your experience, i would welcome any insight or ideas you've got about how we really do use marine security detachments better. >> thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> thank you. grace ling from new york. >> congratulations, grace. >> madam secretary, wonderful to see you again. if you have advice for a fellow new yorker finding her way in this town, let me know. as a woman and a mom thank you for being a role model for women not only in the quites but also throughout the world. thank you for your compassion

and leadership, always. i'm curious. in the past week we've seen the french respond decisively to the situation in mali. the african union has fought well in somalia. do you see this as an advancement of multilateralism in combating islamic extremism in the mideast, in africa, and what more can we ask for allies in that area? >> congratulations grace. that's an excellent question. i think that's exactly what we're coping with right now. i'm very proud of the work we did on -- with african nations to stand up, financially support and train the force that has driven them out of the dominant position it had. that meant putting american trainers, working with troops from uganda, burundi, eventually kenya, advising other countries that were willing to put in

assets. it took money, took time, what if we recognize the new somaly government which could never have been possible out -- without the support, the u.n. was strongly behind it, we got other nations to invest. what we're looking at in west africa is to try to help support an african a.u. supported troop combination from a number of countries to really take the lead against the terrorists in northern mali. again, this is hard. it united states does something on our own, and i appreciated what the congressman said, no one can match us in military

assets and prowess. a lot of the challenges we face are not immediately or sustainably solved by military action alone. therefore, we have got to get countries in the region to increase their border security, to increase their antiterrorist, counter terrorist efforts inside the own orders, we have a lot to do in west africa. so, i think you are right to point out that the united states has to play a role, but in used to be part of a multilateral effort in order to have a chance at success. >> thank you, madam secretary. we have discussed important issues. i remain concerned about whether the review board capture the full picture of what happened, but i think we can agree that we can work together moving ahead to improve security and a number of different areas. this hearing now stands

adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> senator john kerry has been nominated to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state during his senate confirmation hearing is tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern. we will have live coverage of the senate foreign relations

committee here on c-span. >> what is the best training for a policeman? >> the best training you can get is to become a really good police officer and find out what is all about. you learn how to develop sources, use intelligence information, you learn how to leverage relationships. that is the key. people in the community trust you. they will tell you things that are happening that are not yet crimes. that way you can intervene. they will tell you how to go about doing that. i learned the most from that. >> from high school dropout to a single mother to that d.c. police chief, more with katcathy lanier. >> today the senate passed a bill that extends the debt

ceiling, allowing the surgery department to borrow more money. it also requires congress to pass a budget and will withhold numbers pay intel they do so. harry reid says that he seeks to pass the bill in the senate. here's part of the debate of the bill. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 325, the no budget, no pay act of 2013. this legislation directs members of the house and senate to adopt a budget resolution by april 15, 2013. if either body does not -- the speaker pro tempore: this house is not in order. please remove all conversations. the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. either body does not adopt a budget resolution by april 15, 2013, members ofhat body will have their pay withheld until

they pass a budget. it's simple. no budget, no pay. the american people understand that they don't get paid if they don't do their job, and neither should members of congress. in addition to ensure the complete and timely payment of obligations of the u.s. government, this legislation allows treasury to issue debt between the date of enactment and may 18, 2013. however, treasury may only issue enough debt necesry to pabills coming due before may 18. i want to be perfectly clear on this point. this bill does not allow treasury to run up an unlimited amount of debt between now and may 18. the debt authorized under this bill must be tied to bills coming due during that me frame, and further on may 19, a new debt limit is automatically established. so that's what this bill does. the larger question is why are we even talking about the debt and debt limit. our nation's debt is not just some abstract number.

it has a direct impact on american families. during the president's fiscal commission, the simpson-bowle commission, we heard nonpartisan testimony that when the debt is this large in comparison to the economy, it costs the country the equivalent of about one million jobs. think about that. if washington got its debt and spending under control, one million more americans will be working today. and if that wasn't sobering enough, fitch ratings recently warned that the failure to come up with a plan for reducing our debt would likely still result in a downgrade of the u.s. credit rating. a lower credit rating is sure to mean higher interest rate. that meansigher credit card rates, higher student loans, certainly higher mortgage payments. despite these warnings, the democrat-controlled senate hasn'troduced a budget in 1,300 days, four years without a budget.

how can we begin to get our debt under control when democrats won't even produce a budget this bill is the first step in forcing democrats to put forward a budget so we can start holding washington accountable for its out of control spending. every day, american families have to make decisions abtheir household finances. they have to adjust their spending to cover a whole host of things, groceries, student loan payments, braces for children, and replacement for that aging refrigerator. of course they can't buy everything they want. every day they have to make tough choices. it's time for congress, the house, and the senate to make some tough choices. to be honest, mr. speaker, this isn't a tough choice where i come from. where i grew up if you didn't do your job, you didn't get paid. it's time for congress to start living with the same facts of life everyone else in america has to live with. i support the no budget new york pay act because it brings back accountability and common sense to washington and i urge my colleagues to join me in

passing this bill. thank you, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this republican bill is not a change in policy. it's a change in tactics. house republicans continue to play with economic fire. they're playing political games with the debt ceiling. and that undermines certainty. yesterday, economist simon johnson of m.i.t. testified before our committee saying that a short-term increase would only extend uncertainty he said, i quote, you will continue to undermine the private sector, you will continue to delay investment and reduce employment relative to what it would be otherwise. let's for a second remember history. the last time the house republicans played political

games with the debt ceiling, august 20 11, our economy produced the lowest job growth in three years. during that two-month period, the dow jones plummeted 2,000 points including one of its worst single day drops in history, 635 points on, on august 8. s&p downgrade the u.s. credit rating for the first time in history. leading republicans in june, 2011, criticized the notion of a short-term debt ceiling increase as providing a lack of certainty. the majority leader said, i quote, we feel very strongly that one of the reasons we continue to see an ailing economy is that people have very little confidence, have very little senchity in terms of where we are headed, end of quote. and our ways and means chairman echoed that feeng only days later, saying aut the

prospect of a short-term debt ceiling increase, in quote, it does not give you certainty. this bill does not give certainty but uncertainty. the action we took new year's day to avoid the fiscal cliff brought our total deficit reduction over the past two years to $2.5 trillion. what's more, it set the stage for future further balanced agreements that include both spending cuts and new revenue. we should proceed with that effort, not plunge into further uncertainty. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from smch recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself 15 seconds to say, standard and poor's downgraded the u.s. on

august 5 after the solution was passed. therefore it reflects that what we agreed to falls short to stabilize the medium-term debt die nam ins. with that i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, recognized for two minutes. mr. ryan: you know what we know with certainty? we know with certainty a debt crisis is coming to america. this is not a question of if, it's a question of when. what is a deb crisis? it means we can't keep living beyond our means. we can't keep borrowing from our children's future this, we, our generation of americans, we are being selfish. we are taking from theext generationtheir future.

we have a moral obligation to fix that and if we have a debt crisis, those who get hurt the first and worst are those who need government the most. our seniors. the poor. the people live thoke safety net. that's who gets hurt in a debt crisis. we have an obligation to do something about this. and so what does this bill do? this bill simply says, congress, do your job. when i grew up in wisconsin if you had a job, and you did the work, then you got paid. if you didn't do the work, you didn't get paid. it's that simple. here's the point. we have a law. it's tchailed budget act. it requires that congress passes a budget. by april 15. all we're saying is congress, follow the law. do your work. budget. and the reason for this

extension is so that we can have the debate we need to have. it's been a one-sided debate. the house of representatives has passed budgets. the other body, the senate, hasn't passed a budget for almost four years. we owe our constituents more than that. we owe them solutions. and when both parties put their solutions on the table, then we can have a good, clear debate about how to solve the problem. because the problem is not going away, no matter h much we can wish it away. the problem of debt, of deficit, of a debt crisis is here. we owe it to our children and grandchildren, we owe it to our constituents, to fix this this isn't a republican or a democrat thing. this is a math thing. d the math is vicious. and it's hurting our country. and it's hurting the next generation. and it's hurting our economy. and the sooner we can solve this problem, the better off everybody is going to be. that's why this needs to pass.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is rognized. mr. van hollen: look, this resolution contains some good news but lots of bad news for the american people. thgood news is that our congressional republican colleagues havfinally recognized that america must pay its bills and meet its financial obligations without condition. the bad news is they only want to do that for three months. just read the title. to ensure the complete and timely pame of the obligations of the united states government, until may 19. now if it's a good idea to maintain the obligations of the s. government between now and may 19, it sure is a good idea to make sure we meet the obligations of the united states government beyond that

by setting up what amounts to another fiscal cliff, all our republican colleagues are doing is prolonging economic uncertainty. for the last two years, we have heard from our republican colleagues, economic uncertainty is bad for the economy. guess what? it is. yet that's exacy what you're doing. another big dose of economic uncertainty. this is a political effort simply to increase their negotiating strategy, leverage three months from now, at the expensof jobs in the economy and the american people. how do we know it's at the expense of jobs and the economy? because we saw what happened in august 20 11, as the ranking member of the ways and means committee said, worst month in terms of jobs. we lost, we w our credit rating downgraded. and both g.a.o. and the bipartisan policy center have set a cost -- said it cost the taxpayers over $1 billion. that's all we're doing right now. another dose of uncertainty.

to my friend and colleague the chairman of the budget committee, yes, we need budgets. yes we need to reduce our long-term deficits. that's never been the issue the issue is how. we believe we've got to make trget targeted cuts and reforms but we also believe we need to eliminate a lot of tax breaks and loopholes that we heard from our colleagues about in order to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. if you don't do that, you sock it to everybody else in the country. let's pass a balanced approach to reducing our deficit and not one that takes it out of the expenditure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i would just say w have already increased the debt limit over $5 trillion in the obama administration, almost a 50% inkeys in the debt limit. let me also say we have had many several, temporary short-term increases in the de limit before there's been a more permanent long-term increase in 1987, 1990, 1996. it is not unprecedented, the

action we're going to be taking today. with that, i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from washington state, mr. reichert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. speaker. let me see if i can simplify this a little bit. so there's three branches of government. two branches of the government have responsibility for the budget. and there's three piece to those two branches. the white house is one, the administration needs to produce a budget. the house republicans need to produce a budget. the senate democrats need to produce a budget. for the system to work. well, the president produced his budget. even though we may not agree with it on this side of the aisle. it's increased our deficit from $ 1.4 trillion too $16.4 trillion. some people at home may not grasp the on kept of $16 trillion. let's just talk about $1

trillion. if we spent $1 a second, mr. speaker, how long would it take us to spend that $1 trillion? 36,000 years. we are 16 of those in deb 16 of those in debt. it's time for the senate to do their job. now even though admirullen has said our greatest national security threat is our deficit, and even though the senate has raised their right hand and said, and took an oath, to protect and defend this great nation of ours and defend the constitution, they still have not acted. they still have not done their job. to protect and defend. to uphold the oath that they took. even though admiral muen has said, and i repeat, the national security is a great

risk because of our $16 trillion deficit. if you own a home and off $50 thourblings a year job -- job and you're making your payments on a car and house and you're thinking things are ing just fine. but you know, i want to add to that. so i'm going to buy a new big screen tv, put a pool table in, buy two more cars, put a pool in the back. i'm going to fix the placeup, all of a sudden you realize, i can't pay for it. so you have some options available. you have to raise revenue you go out, get two or three more jobs, or your wife goes to work or your kids have to go to work. and that still doesn't meet your responsibilities. so you have to stop spending. right? stop spending. the only other option now is, get d of some of the stuff you can't pay for because even though you might have stopped spending and taken another job and raised revenue, now you've got to get rid of stuff. get rid of the pool table --

mr. camp: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. reichert: we've got to start cutting things. we need to stop ending. we nd to stop spending in this country. the senate needs to do their job. no budget, no pay. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: i don't think anyo challenges the fact that we have to stop overspending. you can't simplify it and say, stop spending. the problem is that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the full faith and credit of money that's already spent. and that we have plenty of time to talk about taxes and spending, if we talk about concurrent resolutions, if we were talking about

sequestration. if what you're saying is that if there's a budget that i have to vote yes or no on, and one budget says that one way to close and reduce the deficit is to go after the people that are the poorest, the most sick and the oldest and call that entitlement cutbacks, and if i don't vote for that, then it means that the government is not going to pay me, i can go home very easily and tell them a bad budget is worse than no budget and once again, we are holding the spending cuts that a will the -- a lot of people want that should be negotiated hostage. perhaps we've not a three-month -- we've got a three-month reprieve. but the fact remains this is holding up the president and our country from getting on with what we should do, when the impact, fiscal impact of this on our country throughout

the world is dangerous. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. reed: i stand and rise today in support of this no budget, no pay proposal. this is why we ran for offe. this is why i came to washington, d.c., to stand for a vision that's going to attack the debt crisis that is upon us today. the debt crisis that threatens our children and our grandchildren for generations if we do not get our fiscal house in order in washington, d.c. it is time to put up the visions of the house republicans rsus the senate democrats as to what the proposals to move forward to solve this debt crisis are. we owe it to the american people to be open and honest with hardworking taxpayers that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stand for budgets that are all about tax

increases, so be it. i believe there's a better way and that better way will be in a house republican budget that does the responsible thg and lays out a vision of growth and opportunity for generations to deal with this unsustainable debt crisis that is now upon us. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to another member of our committee, mr. mcdermott from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, here we are with another republican straw man out here, a bill set up to fail. the senate has not yet adopted its rules. we don't know where the filibuster is going to be used or anything, and you're saying they have to do sething by a fixed date. now, we've had fixed dates in here as long as i've been here,

and we never make them. but what we are creating is continuous chaos in the economic world globally, and what you're doing this is simplely say -- simply saying, let's have a big kurfuffle. we'll all bring up the same piece of paper and read it and give the same speech and we will continue to retard the ability of the american economy to move forward. recannot send the message worldwide that the united states has lost the ability to make decisions. to pay its debts. if that's the message you want the world to get, that's what this is about today. i'm voting against this. bring back one that lifts the debt limit and gets it out of the way so we can get down to the cost cutting.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has exped. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. black: thank you. as a charter member of the fixed congress now caucus and early supporter of the no budget, no pay, i am very exciting that this legislation ll be voted on in the house in just a little bit. we on the house budget committee work hard to pass a responsible budget each year, but the democrat-controlled senate refuses to do the same. in fact, it has been nearly four years since the senate has passed a budget, and since that time, the government has racked up annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion a year and in total more than $5 trillion in four years. if we say on this current path -- stay on this current path of record deficits, bigovernment and unfunded entitlement programs, greece's presence will be america's future.

-- greece's present will be america's future. the debt crisis is not something we want for our children and grandchildren. accountability in the halls of congress cannot wait. today, we will make an important step in the house to force the senate to either do its job or face th consequences. it's simple. no budget, no pay. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: our job here is to educate the public, not to entertain them. they ran up deficits on the republican side of $6 trillion during an eight-year period of time. $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts and two wars, and now they come back today with a glitzy proposal, no work, no pay.

institutional memory. you remember term limi. remember those in favor say aye line-item veto, the constitutional theorists, they got rid of that. and how about they were going to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution? my dad used to say, at least jesse james had enough personal respect to wear a mask. the ople that put into this situation are now quibbling about raising the debt ceiling when they almost broke the country with the proposals that they offered all those years and never once did they ask president bush. not once did they deny president bush on those proposals. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. ross come. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. ross come: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. rosk up: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. roskum: thank you, mr. speaker. it is common sense to require people if they're getting compensation to do their job. it's been four years. it's been since rod blagojevich, the govnor of illinois, was indicted since the united states budget -- the united states senate has passed a budget. and now we have an opportunity to put pressure on the other body and that is to do their work. we don't do ourselves, we don't do our children, we don't do the taayers any favor by creating a climate that says folks dot have to do their work. we don't get to a solution or a remedy unless we pass budgets. this is an opportunity to get on record, to put the other body out into open fields so we can have a discussion and move this country on a pathway that makes sense.

we ought to pass this and pass it quickly. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to mr. becerra, a member of our committee, and chairman of our caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. becerra: you buy a house, you pay your mortgage. well, at least in this bill for three or four months. you want your kids to go to college, y take out a student loan, and you'll tell the bank, i'll pay for three, four months and we'll talk again. you buy a car, you tell the dealer, love to buy the beautiful car. and you tell the dealer, let's talk in three, four months about what we'll do with the debt. this simply creates more uncertainty, another fiscal cliff and yet another economic case of sabotage against the american public. the party that voted for tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars and a massive new prescription

drug benefit program and put all the costs of that on a credit card does believe it's important now to honor those obligations, pay those bills and maintain the full faith and credit of the united states of america. now with this new congress we have an opportunity to find common ground, not more conflict. instead, our republican colleagues a threatening three strikes against the middle class, against small businesses and the u.s. economy. the u.s. default, gornment shutdown and sequestration. let's start talking about what really matters to americans. the biggest deficit we face, a jobs deficit. let's get to work putting americans back to work let's be problem solvers, not problem makers. it's time to get america moving again. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's ti has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. as i straffle in my south central indiana -- as i travel in my south central indiana district, i hear two simple requests from my constituents. first, they want us to get our spending and our debt under control. secondarily, they want us to work together collectively, republicans and democrats, to get that important job done. that's why i support this proposed legislation, h.r. 325. now, the bill strikes me as imminently reasonable because it not only satisfies those simple requests, it asks us to do our job. we are required under law as has been said before to pass a budget. the house is required to do it and the senate is required to do it. the senate has not done it for four years. now, a budget is essentially spending priorities. it lays out your vision for the future, whatever solutions you may or may not have are revealed ia budget. it's not easy to put together a budget. sometimes it's unpopular but it is our dut so i say no budget, no pay. i am ted of the senate being

dilatory in its responsibilities. they need to pass a budget. that's why i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one member to -- i yield o minute to a member of our committee, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: we continue to talk pasone another. the issue is not passing a budget or passing a budget. the issue is whether or not we are going to take fundamental steps to reform the way that we spend money around here. my good friend, mr. ryan, and the republican budget that they passed on a couple of occasions, would have required trillions of dlars in additional budget -- in additional debt ceiling increase and wouldn't be balanced for several decades. let's stop playing games with the form and let's sit down and

work on the things we agree upon. i think the american public would support us if we took out tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary spending for redundant nuclear weapons, to reform the scandal that is the crop insurance program that in cents people to plant land that they should not plant and drives up loes. les accelerate health care reform, like we're doing in oregon, that would save over $1 trillion if it were applied nationally. let's get down and do it. act, don't debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 325. the bill is an important step toward getting our fiscal house in order because it requires the senate to finally pass a budget, something american families and businesses do each

and every day. the federal government is currently in the process of accumulating its fifth consecutive $is trillion deficit. we need a -- $ trillion deficit. we need a -- $1 trillion deficit. we need a serio plan to address the deficit, however, the senate has gone nearly four years without passing an annual budget. taking a year by year approach and addressing only discretionary spending will not solve our long-term spending problem. we must take a comprehensive long-term approach to the federal budget, a comprehensive approach to spending must address the long-term solvency issues on entitlements such as medicare, medicaid and social security. without reform, spending will remain on an unsustainable path while the medicare and social security trust funds are emptied before the majority of americans currently are paying in even qualified to become beneficiaries of those programs. today's legislation will allow us to work with the senate in achieving this long-term deficit solution we know would meet the needs of americans.

thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, a member oour committee, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore:he gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, the 14th amendment of the constitution states, if i may paraphrase, the public debt of the united states shall not be questioned. in other words, we don't even have the power really in that section 4 of that amendment. you take a look at it and read it what our objectives are rather than bring to debate year after year whether we should raise the debt limit. we ought to do our jobs. it will be foolish if people around the world began to wonder once again whether or not the congress will give the president the ability to pay thdebts that we racked up. both sides voted for many of

this. the fact is that the united states, as the president said, is not a deadbeat nation. we will pay our obligations, both to our bondholders and to seniors and veterans and middle class. so i'm glad my colleagues on the other side have edged slightly away from the precipice default. they are still leaving themselves room to backtra if they don't get what they want. and just the fac that the conference chairperson has said, if we have to shut down the government to make sure president obama understands that, we're serious, that's almost treason, according to the 14th amendment. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield one minute to a distguished member from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 325, base opped a simple principle

if congress doesn't pass a budget, congress doesn't get paid. we cannot start the process of controlling spending in this country without a budget. we also cannot ask hard working taxpayers to manage their own budget when elected leaders fail to do sthosme house has passed a budget each of the last two years. the other body must do theirs if we are going to control the out of control spending. for years the senate has gotten away without passing a budget but they have found time to pass laws that increase spending. s that terrible way to run a government and i support this bill which will pay for bills already obligated. we have to stophe political gamesmanship occurrg here in this town and work together to find common sense solutions to cut spending and find savings in our budget. i look forward to passing this bill that will finally hold congress accountable and begin put -- putting america on a debt repayment plan and stop

future generation from paying for the mistakes of the past. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: can i ask how much time is remaining on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: yes, you may. this secret from michigan has nine and a half minutes, the other secret from michigan has five and a half minutes and the gentleman -- five and a quarter for mr. camp. mr. levin? mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman not from michigan but from the distinguished state of wisconsin, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. mr. spker, the legislation before us today solves no problems. in fact it just min tains the great uncertainty hanging over the u.s. and global economy. whether or not we are going to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states of america in de-- and default on our nation's financial

obligations for the first time in our nation's history. i do not for the life of me understand why anyone would jeopardize that safe haven that's been estlished in this country. we all know what needs to be done to get our fiscal house in order. both parties have to lock arms and jump io the icy water and make digs together. every bipartisan commission that's been formed to address the issue has come up with the same solution, there has to be additional reven and spending cuts to ma this work. but my friends on the other side have had two national campaigns promising to restore funds to the medicare program and increase defense spend big over $2 trillion over the next 10 years. that's $2.7 trillion additional in the two >> house later pass the debt

limit bill. it had support from 83 democrats. senator majority leader harry reid -- the president said that he would sign it when it comes to his desk. on our next "washington journal" a look at possible changes to u.s. gun laws. winnie stachelberg will join us. and president obama posing foreign-policy -- president obama's foreign-policy with max boot. and workplace speech laws were guarding social media. is the guest.ear >> finance started in the 1930s.

it is really a spinoff as a self help. the 1930s is known for everything from the hard economic times to the 1930s, easy everything from alcoholics anonymous to getting rich to various social activists movements. fascism and communism start to be a big deal. porter develops personal finance. her goal is to educate people so that the great depression will never happen again. it is very much of its time, an idea that we can teach people certain skills and if they learn these skills, we will all be ok. >> the dark side of the financial industry with helaine olen. like us on facebook.

c-span, created by american cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service by your tv provider. >> secretary of state hillary clinton was questioned about the september 11 attacks about that u.s. diplomatic post in benghazi, libya. a u.s. ambassador died in that attack and three of the staff. she will be stepping down from her post once the new secretary of state is confirmed. this hearing is two and half hours.

[gavel] >> good morning. the committee will come to order. let me begin by welcoming the new members to the committee. since the full senate has not passed the committee resolution officially, i want to ask unanimous consent to returning members to allow prospective members to participate in today's hearing. if there is no objection, so ordered.

let me welcome you and thank you for coming before the committee. you had an intervening challenge and we are thrilled to see you here today doing well and to take time out of your schedule in these final days to discuss the tragic events that occurred in benghazi on september 11, and the lessons we need to learn from that event to make sure all of our personnel is protected. in your tenure as secretary of state, you have always been up front, forthright, and energetic. i commend you for it. the tragic events in benghazi are a tragic reminder of the

inherent risks. they underscore the very real courage of the men and women who put their lives at risk to serve these station's interests in those areas. it is a reflection of your leadership as well as your patriotism to move a world toward democracy peace and preservation of human rights. i believe every member has always welcomed your openness and cooperation. four-letter was appreciated by members on both sides as an it is a reflection of your leadership as well as your patriotism to move a world toward democracy peace and preservation of human rights. i believe every member has always welcomed your openness

and cooperation. your letter was appreciated by members on both sides as an example of that openness and cooperation. we share your commitment today to devise policies to better protect the men and women serving in d.c. and posts around the world. ambassador chris stevens, glen doherty, sean smith, and tyrone woods lost their lives during terrorist attacks. we grieve with their families. we also resolved to take specific actions to prevent future incidents. we may not be able to prevent every single terrorist attack of the future, but we can and must make sure our embassies and employees are capable of

withstanding such an attack. the department has embraced all 29 of the recommendations. we hear more today about the progress already made toward implementation of many of the recommendations. i would add the congress is not without responsibility. we have an obligation to do our part to comply with the administrative review board's recommendations. i intend to work with the department in the coming months on legislation that will improve security and better protect our employees. one of the easiest things we can do is ensure the contract rules allow for sufficient flexibility to allow them to quickly make decisions where security is at risk and to hire local guards on a best-value basis to ensure we are not just checking the box when it comes to protecting our

people and securing the building. value should be a priority in all locations. we also look at where sole source may be appropriate to respond to certain security- related concepts. we also support expanding the marine security guard program, hiring more diplomatic security personnel and authorizing full funding for the embassy construction, capital costs program. the program was created in the aftermath of the 1988 bombing that resulted in 224 deaths, including a 1100 american citizens. it funded the construction of 13 new facilities in the first year, followed by 11 in 2006. nearly every year since, fewer have been built than the previously year due to funding constraints.

at the current anticipated funding rate for fiscal year 2013, we will be able to construct just three new facilities, despite the fact there are a couple dozen posts designated as high-risk, high threat posts. the lessons of benghazi are not only about adequate security operations. it is also our foreign at facilities, within the department itself, and between the department and congress. the department should be assessing and regularly designating which post is high threat or high risk. using that information to drive decisions about security.

the administrative review board also made clear they were failures in benghazi that resulted in inadequacy, and the responsibility is shared by washington, and by the inexact status. it is left unclear what the security was or should be. clearly, that needs to change. there are two other crucial points made that deserve attention on a larger scale. first, the emphasis on the growing challenge faced by all american officials operating overseas, how to remain active in high threat environment. how to get out beyond the walls of our facilities. how do we remain successful in the private sector while still securing our embassies and

protecting our people in these environments? the review board correctly points out the department has been resource-challenged for many years. this has constrained our mission, and restricting the use of resources even for security has become a conditioned response. decisions about the security resources being made more on costs than value. the approach fails to recognize the diplomacy and foreign aid put down payments in terms of good will, open borders for the export of american products, protection of intellectual property, and, most importantly, cooperation on security and counterterrorism. there is a lot to discuss. welcome again. we appreciate your time. on a personal note, since this is likely to be your last

hearing before this committee and your leadership will be missed, i speak for many when i say you have been an outstanding secretary of state. you have changed the face of america abroad, and extended the hospitable reach of our nation to ordinary citizens in addition to world leaders. during your tenure, changes in asia, a momentous transition in libya, and a trend toward global strength based on economics rather than arms. i personally appreciate the fact you use your office to aggressively find sections to iran. nst iran.ons afgai you supported the voice of those individuals who do not live in the limelight, women, children, religious minorities, and the lgbt community.

i look forward to working closely with you in the future. we thank you for your service here in the senate. as secretary of state, we welcome you back any time to talk about the issues of the day, recognizing you may not care to spend more time in that chair then you already have. we appreciate your incrediblewee service. let me turn to my friend and colleague, the new ranking member of the committee. >> thank you. thank you for your comments. and also for following through to have this hearing today. i want to welcome the new committee members. there will be time for us to talk a little bit about the committee moving forward in many ways. this is closing out business

from before. i thank you very much for having this hearing. i want to thank you, also. we have had a number of conversations over the last several weeks and the last four years. i want to thank you for coming in today and honoring the commitment you made some time ago. i know you have had health issues still undergoing and you are hill -- you are here today. we do respect the tremendous amount of hard work you put forth over the last four years. you trot -- you probably traveled more than any secretary of state in history. you can add your job with hard work and diligence. we all appreciate the transparency with which you talk to all of us. i do want to say benghazi

represents a lot of different things. in some ways, the aftermath in particular of what we saw represenhe verworst of washington. the most bizarre briefing i think i ever attended was on september 20, where the intelligence community said more than nothing and it was a bizarre briefing, at best. happ i a political campaign and there was a lot of spin from the white house and a lot of comments made on both sidesf which heightened a lot of the focus on benghazi. i think it also represented a department that made decisions that were not based on what was best for those in the field. i think it represented in many ways the denial of the world as it really is today.after readint represented a committee that has never done its work, never done the kind of oversight this committee ought to do.

it also represents an awakening. i know you have known this, and especially many of the members on this committee have known this. the spiking of the ball and thinking when osama bin laden was gone, that was the end of al qaeda, we know nothing could be further from the truth. the arab spring is ushered in a time where al qaeda is on the rise. the world, in many ways, is even more dangerous as we lack a central command and instead have these nodes scattered

throughout north africa and other places. this creates an opportunity for us to address the world as it really is today. thirdly, i know it was a great personal loss to you that chris stevens died in the way he did and his three colleagues died the way they did. i know you have experienced this and some other members have, but look at the faces of those on the ground in libya in a state of shock, people we send there, doing expeditionary diplomacy, who felt they were on a tether

and did not have the support from washington they needed, to do the things they needed to do. i think this is an opportunity for us to examine the failures. i know you will be as transparent as you have always been. this is a great opportunity for the incoming secretary to learn from what has happened. many times, political appointees have great difficulties with the bureaucracy that exists within a the department where people think they can wait you out. this is an opportunity for us also to develop a foreign policy that reflects, again, the dynamics of the region as they really are today. lastly, i think this is an opportunity for the committee to finally do the work that it should have been doing for years. when you read the record and realize we have never done an authorization of the state department in the six years i have been here, we have never looked at how foreign aid has been spent.

we have never done a top to bottom review. it is something people like you come to this position, look at as something that is healthy. there was mention of cost. i was disappointed with the arb when the first thing that came out of the mouths of people i respect was money, money, money. this committee would have no idea whether the appropriate amount of money is being spent or if that could have prevented what was happening -- what happened because we have never had an authorization. i want to close again by thanking you for your service, thanking you for your friendship, thanking you for your transparency, and i certainly look forward to your testimony. i know it will be presented in a way that will be constructive and helpful for us in the future. >> thank you. we welcome your remarks. >> thank you. members of the committee, older and new, i am grateful for the

opportunity and thank you for your patience. as both the chairman and the ranking member have said, the terrorist attacks in benghazi in 2012 that claimed the lives of four brave americans, chris stevens, glen doherty, sean smith, and tyrone woods, are part of a broader strategic challenge to the united states and our partners in north africa. i want to offer context, share what we have learned, and where we can work together to not only honor our fallen colleagues, but continue to champion

american interests and values. any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with a sobering fact. since 1988, there have been 19 review boards investigating attacks on american diplomats and their facilities. benghazi joins a long list of tragedies for our department, other agencies, and america. our embassy in 1983, counsel and staff murdered in 2004, the coast attack in 2009, and too many others. since 1977, 65 american diplomatic personnel have been killed by terrorists. the list of lives saved is even longer. we should never forget our security professionals get it right more than 99% of the time against difficult odds all over

the world. that is why, like my predecessors, i trust them with my life. administrations of both parties and partnerships with congress have made good faith efforts to learn from these attacks. to implement recommendations from the review boards, to seek the necessary resources, and to do better to protect people from constantly evolving threats. that is the least the men and women who served this country deserve. i have no higher priority and no

greater responsibility. as i have said many times, i take responsibility and nobody is more committed to getting this right. i am determined to leave our country safer, stronger, and more secure. taking responsibility meant moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to crisis, but also to further protect our people in high threat areas across the world. it meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly what happened in benghazi and recommend steps for improvement, and it meant intensifying efforts to combat terrorism and figure out effective ways to support the emerging democracies. let me share some of the lessons we have learned, the steps we have taken, and what we continue to do. let's start on september 11 and those difficult early days. i have stayed in close contact with officials across our government and the libyan government.

i saw firsthand what is called timely and exceptional coordination. no delays in decision making. no denials of support from washington or our military. i want to echo the review board's praise for the valor and courage of the people on the ground, especially the security professionals in benghazi and tripoli. american lives were saved in real time. the next morning, i told the american people that heavily armed militants assaulted our compand. i vowed to bring them to justice. i stood with president obama as he spoke about an act of terror. it is important to recall in that same time period, we were seeing violent attacks in cairo, as well as large protests outside many other posts, where thousands of our diplomats served. so i immediately ordered a review of our security posture around the world, with particular scrutiny for high- threat posts.

and i asked the department of defense to join interagency security assessment teams and to dispatch hundreds of additional marine security guards. i named the first deputy assistant secretary of state for high threat posts so missions in dangerous places get the attention they need. and we reached out to congress to help address physical vulnerabilities, including risks from fire, and to hire additional diplomatic security personnel and marine security guards. second, even as we took these steps, i hurried to appoint the accountability review board so we could understand what was wrong, how do we fix it. i have accepted every one of their recommendations. i asked our deputy secretary for management and resources, deputy tom nides, who appeared

before this committee last month, is leading a task force to ensure all 29 are implemented quickly and completely, as well as pursuing additional steps above and beyond the recommendations. i pledged in my letter to you last month that implementation would begin and it has. 85% are on track to be completed by the end of march, with a number completed already. but we are also taking a top-to- bottom look to rethink how we make decisions on where, when and whether our people should operate in high-threat areas, and how we respond to threats and crises. we are initiating an annual high threat post review chaired by the secretary of state, and ongoing reviews by the deputy secretaries, to ensure that pivotal questions about security reach the highest levels.

we will regularize protocols for sharing information with congress. these are designed to prevent another attack. we are also moving on a third front, addressing the broader strategic challenge in north africa and the wider region. benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. the arab revolutions have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region. instability in mali has created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we just saw last week in algeria. and let me offer our deepest condolences to the families ofwe remain in close touch with the government of algeria, ready to provide assistance if needed,

and also seeking to gain a fuller understanding of what took place so we can work together to prevent such terrorist attacks in the future. concerns about terrorism and instability in north africa are not new, of course. they have been a top priority for this entire national security team. but we need to work to increase pressure on al-qaida in the islamic maghreb and the other terrorist groups in the region. i've conferred with the president of libya, the foreign ministers and prime ministers of tunisia and morocco.

i met with a very large group of regional leaders at the un and was part of a special meeting focused on mali and the sahel. in october, i flew to algeria to discuss the fight against aqim. in november, i sent deputy secretary bill burns on an interagency group to algiers to continue that conversation. and then in my stead, he co- chaired the global counterterrorism forum that was held in abu dhabi and a meeting in tunis of leaders working on building new democracies and reforming security services. closing safe havens, cutting off finances, countering their extremist ideology, slowing the flow of new recruits. we continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice. we are using our diplomatic and economic tools to support the emerging democracies and strengthen to provide a path away from extremism. the united states must continue to lead in the middle east, in north africa, and around the world.

we've come a long way in the past four years, and we cannot afford to retreat now. when america is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. extremism takes root. our interests suffer. our security at home is threatened. that's why chris stevens went to benghazi in the first place. nobody knew the dangers better than chris. a weak libyan government, marauding militias, even terrorist groups; a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel. he never wavered. our men and women who serve overseas understand that we do accept a level of risk to represent and protect the country we love. they represent the best

traditions of a bold and generous nation. they cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs. but it is our responsibility to make sure they have the resources they need to do those jobs and to do everything we can to reduce the risks they face. for me, this is not just a matter of policy. it's personal. i put my arms around the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers, and the wives left alone to raise their children. it has been a great honor to lead the men and women of the state department and usaid, nearly 70,000 serving here in washington and at more than 275 posts around the world. they get up and go to work every day, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances because they believe the united states is the most extraordinary force for peace and progress the earth has ever known. and when we suffer tragedies overseas, the number of americans applying to the foreign service actually increases.

that tells us everything we need to know about what kind of patriots i'm talking about. they do ask what they can do for their country, and america is stronger for it. so today, after four years in this job, traveling nearly a million miles and visiting 112 countries, my faith in our country and our future is stronger than ever. every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words "united states of america" touches down in some far-off capital, i feel again the honor it is to represent the world's indispensible nation. and i am confident that, with your help, we will keep the united states safe, strong, and exceptional. so i want to thank this committee for your partnership and support. you know that america's values and vital national security interests are at stake.

it is absolutely critical that this committee and the state department work together with your new secretary of state to address the changes needed to face our increasingly complex threats. i know you share my sense of responsibility and urgency and while we may not agree on everything, let's stay focused on what really matters -- protecting our people and the country we love. thank you for the support you personally have given to me over the last four years. i would be happy to take your questions. >> thank you. we have a full committee present. in order to give each member an opportunity to give everyone time, i will limit those to five questions.

i start with myself. we saw a late night reporting on discussions of a location of the benghazi. my understanding is that the location was an ongoing one and that the ultimate conclusion of the ambassador stevens is that we need to be in the benghazi and that, while he was continuously reviewing other options, it was his conclusion, as well as that of the security personnel that the current site was the best choice, despite a higher price tag because it was more secure than returning to the hotel, where there had been a bomb and bomb threats or moving closer to the and that's because it was closer to the road. can you give us your insight on the decision making process regarding the location of the mission?

can you -- you touched upon it in your ultimate the statement, but what actions were you and your staff taking that night? >> first, you are right there was an ongoing discussion. when chris first landed in benghazi, he stayed in a hotel. there were attacks in the vicinity, including in the parking lot of the hotel. the decision was to move. the compound was selected as being a much better location in terms of security than the alternative. there was an ongoing discussion between tourists and others and those going in and out of benghazi about how best to situate our post there. i saw overnight reporting about a document. i am not sure what it is. i would observe there were a lot of ongoing efforts because it was important we were constantly asking what was the best place. as you said, and chris was committed to not only being in the benghazi but to the location. the professionals in washington

paid close attention to his judgment based on his experience and firsthand knowledge. we stayed and continued to try to upgrade the facility that was attacked. as has been pointed out, there were inadequacies in the response. specific kinds of recommendations we are currently implementing. regarding what i was doing on september 11, i was at the state department all day and late into the night. during most of the day, prior to getting notice of the attack, we were focused on our embassy in cairo. that was under assault by a group of protesters. we were assessing the security of our embassy, which is well- defensed. there were crowds intent on trying to scale a wall.

we were in close communication with our team. i was notified of the attack for the after 4:00 p.m. over the following hours, we were in continuous meetings and conversations in the department with our team in tripoli, in the agency, and internationally. i instructed officials to consider every option, to break down the doors of the libyan officials to get as much security support as we possibly could to coordinate with them. i spoke to the national security adviser several times. i briefed him on developments. i thought all pot -- i sought all possible support from the white house. they quickly provided it. tom was my first call. i spoke to get the situation updates. i spoke with the former cia director to confer and coordinate, given the presence of his facility, which was not well known, but was something we knew and wanted to make sure we were closely last up

together. i talked with the libyan national congress president to press him on greater support. i participated and a video conference on see with -- with senior officials. we were going over every possible option, reviewing all that was elite -- available to us. any actions we could take. we were reaching out to everyone we could find to get an update about ambassador chris stevens, and also our information specialist, john smith. -- sean smith. i spoke with president obama later in the evening to bring him up to date, hear his perspective. we kept talking with everyone during the night, in the morning, on the 12th, i spoke with jim -- general dempsey. the two hardest calls i made to -- were obviously to the families. they were extraordinary in their responses and their understanding of the pride we had in both men.

and gratitude we had for their service. i would add, mr. chairman, that while this was going on and we were trying to understand it, get on top of it, we were continuing to face protests, demonstrations, violence across the region. there were so many protests happening and fat -- and thousands of people were putting our facilities at risk. we were certainly very determined to do whatever we could about benghazi. we were really -- relieved when we got the last americans out. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you. madam secretary, i agree with you when people go in the field, they do it knowing the risk. one of the untold stories here is the heroic capture nature of what they did to save lives in libya.

i also have to say there were systemic deficiencies and i know you know that. i would like to speak to that for a moment. to my knowledge, no one has been held accountable. our staff had a meeting with one of the state department officials. it was nothing short of bizarre as they talked about the communications. these officials were screaming out for more security. i am wondering if you might mention one reform that might be helpful so you would have known of the need their of security -- there of security. >> i have thought about this almost constantly since that date. i do feel responsible. i feel responsible for the nearly 70,000 people who work for the state department. i take it very seriously. the specific security request pertaining to benghazi were handled by the security professionals in the department. i did not deny them or approve them. that is one of the findings that the ambassador and the admiral made that these requests do not ordinarily come to the secretary of state.

>> i respect you tremendously but we have a short amount of time. they did come into focus. we did have people on the ground at no cost to the state department. they were asked to be extended by the ambassador. someone at the state department turned that down. i just wonder what has happened inside to make sure that never happens again.

>> several things. not only are we on the path to implement all of the recommendations. we have gone beyond that. we immediately did this high threat assessment using these assets as well as our own. that had never been done before. we asked congress to help us reallocate funds. the senate has given us that authority.

we do not yet have it from the house. we can get more marine guards, a more security guards, put more money in the maintenance and the construction needed. i am recommending there be a regular process that includes the secretary and the deputies in these decisions. nobody wants to sit where i am and have to think now what could have, should have, would have happened to avoid this. only two have ever been unclassified.

the one coming out of the east african bombings, where there was full transparency, a set of recommendations, many of which have been abandoned. this committee never had a public hearing about the 17 others, because they were classified. we are putting into action steps that we think will help the next secretary be able to make these decisions, be part of these decisions, have more insight into what is going on, and we would welcome the opportunity to work closely with a subcommittee or a set of members to make sure that is

what is happening. >> thank you. i will say none of them have ever been fully implemented. >> that is not accurate. i heard you say that and it shocked me. we went back and did a full and thorough investigation. the vast majority have been implemented. we will give you a report to that effect. that is the kind of information that would be shared. there is always an armed services authorization. there needs always to be a foreign relations committee authorization. >> my last question. it is my sense that as a nation, we were woefully unprepared. i think you share that. i just wonder. i know you made opening comments regarding us leading in that area. it seems to me benghazi symbolizes the woeful unpreparedness our nation had as it relates to issues in north africa. i hope you will address that as you move ahead. >> let me briefly address what

i think is one of the key issues for our country. when i was here four years ago testifying for my confirmation, i do not think anybody thought gaddafi would be gone, that we would have such a revolutionary change in the region. there were hints of it. several of us said the institutions were sinking in the sand. there was some feeling out there. i do not think any of us predicted this, least of all the people in these countries who were then given the chance. this is a great opportunity as

a serious threat to our country. i hope we seize the opportunity. it will not be easy. these new countries have no experience with democracy. they do not have any real experience among the leaders in running countries and doing security. we now face a spreading to hottest threat. we have driven a lot of the operatives out of afghanistan. this is a global movement. we can kill leaders, but and still we help establish a strong democratic institutions, until we do a better job communicating our values and building relationships, we will be faced with this level of instability. i have a lot of thoughts about

what more we can and should do given this new reality we face. >> thank you. senator kerry >> thank you. -- senator. >> thank you. you have always spoken out forcefully where required. this is maybe the last time you come before us as secretary. i want to thank you for your advocacy on behalf of women around the globe. you will be sorely missed. i hope not for too long. as you have said, you were heartbroken by those losses in benghazi. we saw your face many times today, as well. you were heartbroken personally and professionally. rather than pointing to others for their deficiencies, you

stepped up and convened an accountability to review board to look into this in detail. you asked them to tell it the way they saw it. i want to give you my take on that. i want to go to something the senator said which i agree with. the first report we got from the intelligence community a week or so after was very confusing. it was not helpful to us. all of us felt that way. i want to speak for myself. the difference between that meeting and the meeting we had with those cochairs could not have been more different. they were so impressive. they were thorough and strong. they did call it the way they saw it. i am grateful you have unequivocally committed to ensuring their recommendations are implemented to the fullest extent. this brings me to a question.

as we all know, the house of representatives urged and voted for a cut for embassy security. maybe it is irrelevant for some here, but i have a message. it does cost money to pay for embassy security or police on the beat or military personnel. to me, i was not disappointed to hear the cochairs say, congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the state department to address security risks. i think it is a no-brainer. the fact we would even have a problem with this, to me, does not make sense. i hope we can work together to

get the resources we need for security. that brings me to a question about working more closely with the dod. here it is. have you already engaged with dod to provide additional marines at u.s. facilities to fill the recommendation that state and dod work together to provide more capacity is at higher risk posts? before you answer that, could you address the issue right now? when you look at mali, you see a government that is weak, they do not have the best security. are we working on that post? >> thank you. you raised a lot of very important issues. i will try to be as quick as i can in responding. let me start with the budget. this is a bipartisan issue. since 2007, the department has consistently requested diplomatic security. with the exception of 2010, congress has consistently enacted less. in 2012, the department reached close to 10% less than requested. maintenancy budgets for almost

10% off, as well. i would go back to something the chairman said. consistent shortfalls have required the department to prioritize available funding out of security accounts. i will be the first to say the privatization process was at times imperfect. the funds provided were inadequate. we need to work together to overcome that. we are asking for funding for more marine security guards, for refilling the capital account so we can begin to do the kinds of upgrades and

construction needed. house and senate appropriations have been briefed. we sent letters to the house and senate leadership to ask for transfer authority language. the senate was good enough to put it in the senate version of the supplemental. it did not get into the house side. we are still looking for the house to act. with respect to mali, there was a country making progress on its democracy.

it suffered a military coup, which threw it into a state of instability. some groups had been in the employ of gaddafi for years. he used them as mercenaries. with his fall, they came out of libya, bringing huge amounts of weapons from the enormous storage of weapons gaddafi had that insurgence liberated, as well as others. they came into northern mali. at the same time, there was a move to establish a base in northern mali. we have been working to try to upgrade security around the northern mali, round a number of countries. algeria is the only one with any real ability to do that. most of these countries do not have the capacity to do that. we are now trying to help put

together an african force so that african soldiers can be at the front of the fight. simoleons asked the french to come in. france is one of our oldest allies. we are trying to provide for them. this is going to be a very serious, ongoing threat. if you look at the size of northern mali, you look at the desert and caves, and we are in for a struggle. it is a necessary struggle.

we cannot permit northern mali to become a safe haven. people say, aqim has not attacked the united states. before 9/11, 2001, we had not been attacks on our homeland since pearl harbor. you cannot say because they have not done something, they will not do it. this is a criminal enterprise. make no mistake. we have got to have a better strategy. not only a strategy that understand making it possible for these governments to defend itself better, for people to understand and agree with us that they can bolster democracy and try to give these arab resolutions a chance to succeed. >> thank you.

>> thank you for your service. thank you for the kindness you have shown the committee over the time you have been there. i appreciate you facilitating meetings for us. moving to the issues at hand, this morning, the national media is reporting that a number of the attackers in algeria are people who participated in the attack in the benghazi. can you confirm that for us? >> i cannot confirm it. i can give you the background that i was able to obtain. this information is coming from the algerian government, related to their questioning of

certain terrorists they took a life. we do not have any way to confirm its as yet. i can assure you we will do everything we can to determine that. you know director mueller was in the region meeting with leaders. he is very well aware we have to track these. this is a new threat that will be followed. >> i appreciate that. one person was captured and then released. was he one of the people who participated in the algerian attack? >> we have no information. i think you are referring to the man who appeared in a tunisian court. upon his release, i called the

tunisian prime minister. two days later, the director met with the prime minister. we have been assured that he is under the monitoring of the court. he was the least -- he was released because there was not an ability for evidence to be presented yet that was capable of being presented in an open court. tunisians have entered us they are keeping an eye on him. >> thank you. you testified in your remarks.

"i told the american people that our compound was a salted and i vowed to bring them to justice." i am assuming you have rock- solid evidence to make such a bold statement. >> we had four dead people and several injured once seriously. -- ones seriously. although we did not have the chance to meet with any of our attorneys, our people in tripoli receive them, got medical care for them. there was an attack, a heavily armed attack. who these people work, where they came from, that was still to come. >> there has been a lot of debate as to the context the word terror was used in. the next sunday morning, when

the ambassador rice went on sunday morning talk shows, and we realized this happened at a politically charged time as we approached an election. americans are still entitled to be told the truth. did you select ambassador rice? >> i did not. although i have not had a chance to testify, i have seen the resulting debate. you are right. it was a terrorist attack. what caused it? that is what we did not know. we did not know what their motives were. after months of research, it was made clear the picture remains still complicated. i say that because in the unclassified, i quote, key questions surrounding the

identity and motivation of the perpetrators remains to be determined. i recommend all staff read the classified version, which goes into greater detail. i cannot speak to it. it goes into greater detail because there were a variety of potential causes and triggers. there was evidence the attack was deliberate, opportunistic, and coordinated, but not necessarily indicative of extensive planning.

i personally was not focused on talking points. i was focused on keeping our

people say. as i said, i have a very serious threat environment in yemen. we have people getting over that wall at the cairo, doing damage, until we got them out. we had a serious threat against our embassy in tunis. had to make the president of tunisian descent reinforcements, which he did -- i had to beg the president of tunisia to send reinforcements. i really do not think anybody in the administration was really focused on that so much as try to figure out what we should be doing. i wasn't involved with the the talking points process. as i understand it, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the state department, participated to come up with the whatever was going to be made publicly available. it was not -- it is my understanding and the intelligence community is working with the appropriate committees to explain the whole process. >> i gather you still stand by the statement he made less than 24 hours that heavily armed militants insulted our compound. do you still stand by that? >> absolutely. >> congratulations and thank you for your service as secretary of state. i do think it has paid off heavy dividends for the american people. i want to acknowledge your leadership. senator boxer acknowledged the gender issues yet taken international leadership on. thank you for your help in dealing with corruption, critically with transparency -- particularly with transparency. benghazi was a tragedy. the loss of american lives. we have also acknowledged the bravery of those on the ground. they did extraordinary work. we had a hearing on december 20 with your deputies. the provided all the information.

we thank you for being here today. i want to follow up on one area of northern africa. the risk factors we have in northern africa. algeria is a reminder of the global security concerns. we do not know that -- the individuals who may have been involved in libya may have been involved in algeria. there are reports that weapons have gotten from libya into algeria. which points out our need as we look at transitions occurring in that region, syria, assad will not be there much longer we think. there are a lot of weapons in syria. do we have a strategy to make sure that their weapons are -- we are mindful these weapons could end up harming u.s. interests. it needs to be part of our strategy to make sure we support alternative governments.

that there is a strong party protecting the source of these weapons not ending up harming americans or our interest. >> you are right. one of the reasons we and other government agencies or present in benghazi is exactly that. the had an effort to track down -- we had an effort to track down and recover as many dangerous weapons as possible. libya was a wash in weapons before the revolution. obviously there were additional weapons introduced. the vast majority came out of gadhafi's warehouses. they went on the black market, were seized by militias and other groups and have made their way out of libya into other countries in the region and to syria, we believe. it is a red line for this administration with respect to syria concerning the use of chemical weapons. syria, in addition to having the fourth largest army before this revolution, has a very

significant supply of chemical and biological weapons. given the instability in syria right now, what we are trying to do is courtney closely with a number of like-minded nations -- coordinate closely with a number of like-minded nations to be able to work to try to prevent those from falling into the wrong hands. also to try to work with the internal opposition for them to understand the dangers that are posed. weaponsdora's box of coming out of the countries in the middle east and north africa is the source of one of our biggest threats. there is no doubt the algerian terrorist had weapons from libya. there is no doubt the malian remnants of aqim have weapons from libya. we have to do a much better job.

the final thing i would say is -- i think a lot of people at the time wondered why would we have another command in the world and why in africa. i think we need to pay much more attention to its capacity inside africa. it is based in germany. carter ham has been a dedicated leader of after con -- afrikan during his time there. we will see more demands.

i think that is something else the senate and house will have to address. >> thank you. >> senator rubio. >> thank you. madam secretary, we all wish this never happened but we're glad to see you here and wish you all the best.

i want to share sentiment among other colleagues with tremendous respect for the hard work and service to put in on behalf of our country. one of the things i most interest and in exploring is how affirmation follows in the state department and looking forward to how we can prevent some of this happening. werewer you ever -- were you ever asked to participate in an internal meeting before this attack with regards to this -- deteriorated situation in libya? >> i appreciate your kind words. as i have said, with specific security requests, they did not come to me. with regard to the situation in libya, across libya, there were a number of conversations. and meetings to see what we could do while libya went through this transition from transitional government to interim government to elections to help them with security. critz was clear that was going to be one of their highest need

-- it was clear that was going to be one of their highest needs. i went to libya in october 2011. i spoke with the then leadership and met with them. we sent teams out, civilian and military experts to try to help them. until recently while they were going through their transition, it was a very typical conversation because they did not have the authority they thought. now we are beginning and a half a long list of ways we are trying to help improve security in libya. >> the october 2011 meeting, did this issue come up with regard to the inability of the libyan government to protect our diplomatic institutions?

>> we obviously talked at great -- a great deal about the deteriorating threat environment in libya. one of the reasons we had our own people on the ground and by the world looking to try to figure out how to better protect benghazi and have understandings with those in the annex is because it is the host country responsibility but they were not in a position to do what we would expect from an organized country. but they did have the militias. the february 17 brigade have proven to be responsive in the past prior to 9/11. other militias in tripoli proved to be responsive. when i landed in tripoli, i was met by a militia. that was the welcome i have. all of these guys dressed in black, holding their automatic weapons. we knew we were piecing together what a host nation was not yet able to do.

>> then there was another meeting in march 2012. i believe that was here with the prime minister.

send something or our ambassador is going to be overrun. he said the government has to be understanding that they don't just threaten us but the stability and future of these governments, so we have to help them the way we helped columbia years ago and finally, we've got to do a better job of this. i've said this to this committee before. a lot of new members on it. we have the broadcasting era.

we have c-span, fox, nbc, all that. they are out there and convey information, but we are not doing what we did during the cold war our brad casting board is practically defunct in being able to tell a message. we need to get back into it. we have the best values. we have the best narrative. most people in the world just want to have a good, decent life supported by a good decent narrative and we are letting the jihaddists fill the void. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> first, let me thank you for your service and i wish you the best in your future endeavors, mostly. [laughter] i've got a couple of questions, but i do want to take a moment

or two to say a couple of words about our late ambassador, mr. stevens. most of us have had the chance to work with him even before he was named our u.s. ambassador to libya and i think most would agree he was one of our most able diplomats. i had the occasion to meet with him in tripoli before he and three outstanding americans were murdered in benghazi. his enthusiasm was really something to behold. he was excited about the opportunity to help a nation newly freed from decades of brutal dictatorship. on my first night in country i had the opportunity to join the ambassador for a dinner with the newly-elected parliamentarians and they were excited about building a

democracy and restoring human rights for libyan people. and he was as enthusiastic as they were about the prospects. there's no question he will be missed by all who knew him and worked with him. one of the things that troubles me is the hoops we have had to jump through surrounding the death of these public servants. the state department has delayed and delayed in coming forth with information and finally it mounted to what might be called a document dump. hundreds of pages of paper in a wide disarray in no particular order in no order and often in duplicate making it difficult to locate documents that were of any help. they were murdered on september 11. it's now january 23, more tan

four months later. it's unacceptable that the state department has made it so difficult for congress to exercise its overall responsibilities. now during the july time period ambassador stevens expressed concern about militia activity and the need for additional security and we've seen the cables where they expressed frustration in getting the personnel they believed were needed to protect the diplomats and property. we now know the assignment of state departmental agents on very short-term duty virtuely guaranteeing very limited institutional knowledge was grossly inadequate. why was it so inadequate? and why would he be denied?

why did the department senior leadership not take into consideration the approaching september 1 anniversary particularly in light of direct requests from our mission in libya and finally madam secretary, we have heard numerous times over the past several months that more security was needed for diplomatic security including to some extent this afternoon. i don't believe there's anybody in this room that doesn't want to protect our diplomats abroad. since 2000 congress has provided funding in $10 billion for security, construction and maintenance and we will continue to provide in the future. given now that our nation now faces a mountain of debt given -- by the president in our inaugural address of course means we cannot fund every

program the federal agency addresses so when we consider funding in one department, we have to consider cutting it elsewhere. or at least that's the way it should work. and finally, i know that some have been pedaling this story about it's congress' fault for not viggede significant funding for security. i would just note that your chief financial officer for diplomatic security stated -- and i quote, i do not feel that we have ever been at a point where we have sacrificed security in place of lack of funding. >> the gentleman has used his five minutes and if we want to get through the members, we have to hold to those five minutes so i will ask for your

holding response in writing. >> we won't have to wait long. secretary clinton, first i would like to thank you for the truly remarkable job you have done as secretary of state and you have represented the nation and after a bit of rest i hope you will return to public service and should that bring you to florida, i would welcome you there. i would be remiss if i did not take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of robert lefen son who when missing in 2007 now 2,147 days ago. and i ask that the department continue to do everything it can to return robert to his family. i also want to thank you for the ways that you have handled the events in benghazi. your personal attention to ensure those americans who

serve overseas often as a testament through themselves shows your strength to strengthen diplomatical relations across the board. and how we spend our dollars. we all recognize that we have budgetary concerns and we also recognize we have an obligation to provide security and protect american personnel abroad. as we have ended our military operations in iraq and wind down in afghanistan, what kind of -- i'd like to ask what kind of strain will the presence of less military personnel put on diplomatic zphuret >> that's a very important question that we're really going to have to grapple with together, i hope. we saw, for example, that when our troops withdrew from iraq, it dramatically altered what

our civilians were capable of being able to do. because there had been over the course of the war in iraq, a very good working relationship between d.o.d., state, and u.s.a.i.d. we're going to face the same kind of questions in afghanistan as our troops draw down? afghanistan. and in a lot of these places we don't have military resources. the department of defense was a very good partner to us in responding to benghazi. but their assets were too far away to make much difference in any kind of fashion. i think it is going to look quite pressure i can't, because we're going to need to figure out how to work more effectively together between our military assets in africa and i think that would be a

worthy subject for this committee perhaps working with the arms committee, because it's difficult. but we have tried to work out more relationships and funding streams between state and d.o.d. in order to be able to maximize the cooperation between us. >> when you talk about the need to prioritize because of short falls, more marine security guards, talk about construction budgets and upgrades, what does that mean? what are the decisions that have to be made and how do they impact our diplomatic person snell >> well, first and foremost we have to do the right job prioritizing based on the jobs we do have. i have to say it's not all about money but also not without budgetary consequences. so we have to figure out what's the right balance. secondly, immediately after this happened i spoke with secretary panetta, chairman

dempsey at the department defense, asked home the put an assessment team to look at our high-threat posts because our military brings a different perspective. that's a very important process which we will continue doing. it's got to be a combination of both military assets and expertise but also development. rule of law, democracy-building. it can't be one or the other. they have to be married together. >> and if you could in the few seconds we have left, madam secretary. could you speak more broadly about the important role that would play in this budget debate that's going to take place, why sit important to continue with this? >> let me just give you an answer. columbiaa it had an insurgence

as i, a drug cartel that was basically controlling territory. the united states stepped in, worked with the columbiaans and the progress i think is evidence for all to see. there was a front page article about go to -- that's what america can do. we don't do it ourselves. we partner with willing governments to help them acquire the capacity to help them help their own citizens. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you madam secretary for being here today and i particularlyal appreciate your plan with columbia and indeceased these have been extraordinary success stories in promoting peace throughout the world. the american people will always appreciate its american heroes, and as we begin, i do want to point out for the record i believe that he is correct.

there was a specific quote, although diplomatic security has been fiscal prudent, i do not feel that we have ever been at a point where we sacrificed security due to a lack of funding, and that is to you, and i have faith in the chief financial officer that it's a correct statement. as we begin, it's been reported that since you managed the response to the benghazi attack, why weren't you the person to appear on the sunday shows immediately following the attack. ambassador susan rice said that you declined. was that correct? >> well, i have to confess here in public, going on the sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. there are other things i'd prefer to do on sunday mornings. and i haven't been on a sunday show in way over a year.

so it just isn't something that i normally jump to do. and i did feel strongly that we had a lot that we had to manage and that i had to respond to, and i thought that should be my priority. >> and i believe part of the priority is telling correct information, and you could have done that. and i think it's just very unimportant to the multiple appearances by ambassador rice with information that's been discovered not to be correct. in the november 21, 2012 post a letter was pub lyriced by a retired foreign service officer and he wrote, within the u.s. aid department there's an office known as op center and located in the office of the secretary of state and staffed around the clock by seasoned foreign officers, and its function is to be sensitive to any threats to american

interests wherever they might arise. it has direct communication lines to the whougs situation room, the national military command center at the pentagon and the c.i.a.'s center, having worked at the op center, i know that any information that indicates a threat to the safety of americans overseas is passed to overal agencies mentioned above. if it's of interest, it is the watch officer's job to make sure these other agencies are informed. he goes on. there are many questions that need to be answered and i'd like to present these questions. first and foremost what was going on while our consulate was under attack for seven hours? >> well, we can certainly give you greater detail but the op center is as you have described, the place where

communications goes in and out. they were placing calls and receiving calls and deeply engaged in trying to help us. they don't reach out on their own but to help us acquire information so that we could monday? real time. >> and seven hours, goodness, gracious. there should have been a response. why did the delay in labeling the attack as terrorism when it was immediately known that it was. >> well, again, i would say, congressman that we described the attack. i described the attack the next morning, the president called it an act of terror. there was, as you will find in reading the both classified and unclassified version, there was a lot of questions about who was behind it? who motivated it? and it says those questions are not fully answered today. >> and he continues, why weren't marine guards posted in benghazi in the first place? >> because historically marine

guards are posted where there is classified information. their job so collect and or destroy classified material and at that compound there was no classified material. >> he said there were requests for increased security and those requests were denied. i would submit these and more questions for your response. >> we will respond. >> thank you chairman royce and ranking member for convening. secretary i want to thank you for your willingness to come before this committee for a final time and i want to offer my gratitude for your remarkable service and i'm glad to know that you are feeling

better. you have put country first and for that our nation is endebted to you. with confidence and careful consideration you have shown extraordinary leadership on countless issues ensuring dip ma cri is essential and your tireless effort to elevate women and girls' rights is great and you have made our state department better than when you arrived and i'm especially appreciative to the attention you have given to the 54 nations of africa. while africa may lose one of its most steadfast champions of the state department, i trust africa will not be far from your thoughts and will remain a top priority in your future work and i also want to associate my comments who says it's unimportant to this is the last time we will hear from youso i want to focus my time on moving us forward and asking for your advice. you made preference about best

value contracts and you mentioned, i believe, several nations where best value contracts are not used. and in thinking about africa and the instability and the number of nations and central africa, molly, what we're dealing with now, i want to know whether or not those nations are subject to those type of contracts and whether or not exesmingses or waivers should be used? >> thank you for your efforts on africa. there's only three nations where the state department has an exemption by congress for using different contracting rules in order to get the best value for our country. those are iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. so every other country in the world, we are under the kind of contracting rules that i think do interfere with our capacity to get the best deal,

particularly when it comes to security that we should in these countries where the threats, unfortunately, are going to always be with us. >> should we look to extend to the d.r.c. or somalia? >> i would certainly recommend. there was an article in one of the newspapers today that went into some detail basically here's how it started. for more than two decades the federal laws required them to select the cheapest rather than the best security abroad and there's that old saying, you get what you pay for and that lowest price provision started enough 19t 90 and has just stayed with us and i would respectfully request that this committee look at it. you cannot do a total lifting

but at least look at the high risk areas and the countries you're naming are the countries that i think would fall into that category. well, thank you very much. among the various islamic extremist groups, in your view, which pose the great estill direct threat to the united states and given the limited capacity and are in some cases the political will in which these groups operate, the u.s. military and resources what recommendations would you have for us? >> if you're focusing just on north africa, al qaeda is a brand name. as much as an organization. people wake up, they form these jihaddist groups they then claim to be associated with or affiliated with al qaeda in order to gain some credibility

with local people as well as beyond. i think that we have to take seriously all of these terrorist groups, whatever they call themselves. now, at the moment they don't necessarily have the interest or ability to attack our homeland, but we have a lot of facilities and as sets in our homeland. we just saw facility because we do business all over that continent, so i think we have to look that the and we have to look at our assets to deal with them. >> i would like to take a moment and tell the gentle lady we passed last year the language you're speaking of and the house passed the appropriations. we're going to try to get the our colleagues in the senate to take that measure up. we go now to mr. mccall from texas.

>> thank you mr. chairman. welcome madam secretary. thank you for your service. similar to september 11, 2001. there were warning signs prior to benghazi, september 11. there was an april 6, 2012 i.e.d. thrown over the wall in benghazi, the red cross building hit by two r.p.g.'s. on june 6, 2012, u.s. consulate in benghazi was targeted by an i.e.d., an attack that blew a hole in the perimeter wall and again the same brigade taking credit then we have this cable warning the benghazi consulate could not with stand a coordinated attacked and they

believed our consulate could not be protected. at an emergency meeting less than one month before 9/11. a contingent plan was supposedly drafted to move help at an an exa mile away. it was sencht to your office and sent to the n.f.c. and even on september 11, the day ambassador sfeefens was killed he personally warned about growing problems in benghazi and growing frustrations with security and forces and libyan police. were you aware of this cable? this august 16 cable? >> congressman, that cable did not come to my attention. i have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the arb placed

responsibility where as i think ambassador pickering said the rubber hit the road. now, i think -- >> can i ask you when were you aware of this cable? >> after the arb began to gather information and materials which were -- >> who was in your office? who in your office did see your cable? >> i'm not aware of anyone within my office. >> within the national security council? >> i have no information or awareness of anyone in the national security council having seen that cable. >> was this cable a surprise to you? >> you know, congressman, it was very disappointing to me that the arb concluded there were had in quasis and problems in the responsiveness of our team here in washington to the

security requests that were made by our team in libya. and i was not aware of that going on. it was not brought to my attention, but obviously it's something we're fixing and intend to put into place protocols and systems to make sure it doesn't happen again. >> i certainly hope sew. i think when you have a yithe ambassador personally warning about a situation over there sending this cable to your office. >> if i could. one point 1.3 million cables a year come to washington are addressed to me but they don't all come to me personally. >> certainly somebody in your office should have seen this. >> and i also want to clarify, you know as with regard to the security requests subsequent to the august 16 cable our

personnel in libya had not submitted any additional security requests to washington at the time of the september 11 attack. now there was an ongoing dialogue, as you know between libya and washington. i think it is -- >> my time is limited. an emergency meeting was held and a cable sent out on august 16 by the ambassador himself. warning what could happen. and this cable went unnoticed by your office. that's the bottom line. >> well the facts as we have them, congressman, i will be happy to have you get this in detail. the r.s.o. in benghazi submitted to tripoli a preliminary list of proposed lists but no requests were submitted to washington before the attacks. now this sounds very complicated and to some extent it is. we're trying to simplify it and

avoid the kind of problems that are identified. >> one last question, why was he in benghazi on september 11? >> we're -- i'll submit that question in writing. >> we're going to go now to senator keating of massachusetts. >> thank you mr. chairman. i must say after the tragedy last september, one of the things that just moved me so much were the comments of the family members of one of the heroes who lost their lives. glen daugherty in massachusetts. and paraphrasing them. but they showed people that they shouldn't lose sight over who was ultimately responsible for these deaths and this amazing depth. putting things into perspective and another thing they mentioned was do not lose sight in the causes and as a person who has advanced those causes i want to if you for your

incredible service. now one of the parts of the a.r.v. report that is of great concern to me dealt with what they described to me as a culture of austerity in the state department. and madam secretary. can you take a few moments and expand on the a.r.d.'s findings and how it carries out crucial tasks? >> well, congressman, that is what the arb found. they found that there was a culture of husbanding resources of being quite concerned about responding even on security as important as security is because one never knows what the budget is going to be going forward. and we have had some ups and downs budgetary-wise going back as i said into prior administrations, but it is fair to say that many of the

professionals in the state department have really gotten used to worrying greatly that they will give something to somebody and that will become an expectation that will then have to be taken away. and it did affect the security professionals decisions according to the arb. >> these prioritytyizations have to change not just for security reasons but for our overall mission and quickly, too, with the crisis in molly and the insurgence as i there and spreading jihaddists in northern africa and the arabian peninsula. that area, they are relatively tech in a logically advanced and the threats to go on in terms of cultural austerity there as well. cyberthreats and other security upgrades that will be vitally necessary, and i hope those

things are not lost as we review these situations, can you say what we need going forward in that regard and going forward? >> you mentioned a word that is rarely mentioned in these hearings but which i predict will be a major threat to us and that's cyber. because it's not going to be only nation states where we are already seeing cyberintrusions against our government and private sector, but increasingly non-state actors will have more capacity to disrupt to hack into, to put out false information, to accuse the united states of things that can lighted fires before we can put them out. so you know, i think it's important we have a really thoughtful, conference hencive review about the threats of today and the threats of tomorrow, and that will help guide the committee. it will help guide the senate

and certainly the administration in working together to answer them. >> thank you, and i think i'm going to do something that's not been done yet. i'm going to yield back the rest of my time. >> we go now to mr. po from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, madam secretary thank you again for your service to our country. gordon, roland from oregon. frederick from katy, texas. and victor lovelady from my district, three americans overseas killed not benghazi, but killed at a remote gas facility in algeria. killed in my opinion, because they were americans. over the last weekend myself and others have tried to get information. i would just say that there's too much in my opinion, red

tape from trying to get basical information to the families as to just what happened in a situation like that. i would hope the state department would look at that protocol and try to streamline it, because people died. the algerian government now reports after they captured some of the terrorists alive. some from claiming to be from egypt. one says that after interrogation by the algerian government, whatever that interrogation may entail that there were egyptians involved in the benghazi attack. and that were at the attack on the gas plant in algeria. at the time of the benghazi attacks and al shary the next

day, the terrorist group claimed responsibility for the attack. we probably don't know if the statements made by the algerian or egyptian terrorist that was captured or true or were followed or involved in that attack or not. it does show the whole region is very fluid with different groups getting together, causing mischief. causing mischief throughout the entire region. as of today, several months later after the attack in benghazi, has, to your knowledge, any person been put currently in custody anywhere by any government for the responsibility as a suspect involved in the benghazi attack?

>> congressman, there is one potential suspect who has been placed under monitoring by the tunisian government. there are other suspects that the f.b.i. are both closely following and consulting with partner governments. i think based on my last conversation with director muller, which was just a few days ago. he went to libya. he went to tunisia. heblet that the investigation is proceeding. i know that the f.b.i. has been up on the hill doing classified briefings with certain committees. i don't know about this committee. but i certainly hope that the f.b.i. is able to investigate, identify and hold responsible those who wage this attack against us. and i think that based on their

work, they feel that they are pursuing some very positive leads. >> ok. my understanding is the thank you knees the person held in tunisia was released by a judge and that person has been released. so basically we don't really know at this point who did it. >> well, congressman, i confirmed with director muller who was just in tunisia meeting with their high officials that this person is basically under law enforcement surveillance and forbidden to leave tunis. director muller told me that that had been confirmed to him by the tunisians. >> we don't -- no one's been held accountable, charged with this offense. before gaddafi was taken out, my understanding is the nation

of qatar shipped in 18 shipments, 20,000 tons of weapons, machine guns, r.p.g.'s in the region to help overthrow muammar can a golfy and the united states gave a wink and a nod to this. and idle like an answer to that, mr. chairman. >> we will go to the representative of road island. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you madam secretary for your service to our country that has earned you the deep respect and admiration to our country and all over the world and has enhanced us around the globe. enhancing american nationaler security are too numerous to list but i want to begin by thanking you for all your hard

work and everything you have done in as far as to our country and thank you for your testimony today. the terrorist attacks on september 11 in benghazi and libya. resulting in the tragic deaths of our three diplomats and these are constant reminders of the dangerous work our diplomats engage in every single day all around the world. and while we cannot reduce all risks but to help mitigate and manage those risks with that in mind i hope my colleagues will consider the review bhoord that calls for a more serious and sustained commitment from congress to support state department needs, end quote. this is particularly important given the looming sequester as well as potential government shutdown would have on our diplomatic security help in

high-risk posts. i also want to thank admiral mullen for the prompt review they conducted and of course applaud you, madam secretary for the adoption of all 29 recommendations and promptly undertaking their implementations and providing guidance on the status of that implementation here today. and swrust to say there's been some discussion about getting to the nitty-gritty and fixing problems and i hope we will rely on the security professionals and expert advice and recommendations as i think they are much more likely to produce the best response to what needs to be undertaken. so i want to ask you madam secretary, i know one of the things you did in anticipation of some of the recommendations, you created for the first time ever a diplomatic security deputy assistant secretary. and i think with respect to the report, the importance of examining the state department's organization and

management as it represents to the security manning, my expectations? would be one of the responsibilities of the new position and i wonder if you will tell us little bit about the role of this new secretary and what responsibilities the new position will have and will this individual in particular have the authority to rheal locate resources in order to fill potential gaps if that's one of the challenges we face? >> well, thank you, congressman, this is a deputy assistant secretary for high-threat posts i want one person accountable for looking at these high-threat posts and talking to our military and congressmen and bag voice at the table not just for all 275 posts but really ziering -- zeroing in on what our high-threat posts need. but in addition to that we're going to continue our work with the defense department and inner agency security threats and also for the first time

elevating a lot of these security issues for high-threat posts to the second taylor level, because it hasn't been there before and i think given what we have experienced, it needs to be. we're also looking for the transfer authority to add to our marine security guards, our construction and our diplomatic security. we're enhancing the training for everyone. we're taking a hard look at another problem that the a.r.b. pointed out and that was our temporary duty assignments. you know, very often, given especially the experiences we have had in iraq and afghanistan, and to a lesser extent some other large posts, we have a lot of our most experienced diplomatic experienced people going there. in the two times we have had serious assaults on our ambassador in kabul. kabul is fortfied. kabul has the staffed troops

across the street. as they draw down we have to recognize that the danger is not going to leave with our isap military. so we have to take a hard look at all this and embed that responsibility in this new experienced deputy assistant secretary to do that. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> matt samen of arizona. >> thank you. madam secretary, i appreciate your desire to come before our committee today to testify and answer questions to help us make the changes necessary to ensure the safety of all our foreign service officers, particularly those making the heavy sacrifices in high-threat regions but i have to say i am troubled to what seems to be this pattern of this administration's want to make people accountable from the fast and furious where the general has repeatedly misled

and the international gun walking scheme and to u.n. secretary rice who on five separate occasions went before the american people talking about a demonstration at a facility that never happened. it was not even suggested in any of the reports, informs coming from benghazi. i know the purpose of this hearing is to ensure another benghazi never happens again, i hope we include the aftermath of the tragedy as well. how we make sure the gross misrepresentations never happen again. a couple of other questions, i know you put the four individuals identified as culpable on administrative leave, what do you think the final status will be with the department and the accountability review board did not identify any individuals above the secretary excuse me

assistant secretary level as accountible for the security failures at the benghazi mission. you said the numerous cables requesting and begging for additional security resources sent by ambassador chris stevens were never seen by state officials above assistant secretary eric boswell or assistant secretary charlene lamb. i know you care deeply about the people that work with you in the department. so given the fact that your testimony is you never saw any of these multiple requests and nobody above the assistant secretary saw these requests, doesn't that give you some concerns about the flow of information within the department? and maybe some of your underlings ability to prioritize and get to your attention serious issues. you said that you get hundreds of thousands of cables all the time, and these cables are sent directly to you. i understand that you don't read them all nor do you have

the time to do that, but i would think that within the department you would have people that work with you and prioritize and get to you the ones that are more serious in nature especially when somebody's security is on the line. finally, president trueman had a plaquerd on his desk that said the buck stops here. i know that you have taken responsibility and i applaud you for that but i really hope this is not just another exercise in finding lower level bureaucrats to throw under the bus and actually get somewhere with this not just a game of gotcha but how can we fix this in the future and i'd love your answers. >> well, congressman, that's exactly what i'm intent on doing and the arb, not i have made its findings. the reason arbs were created was to take a dispassionate view of the situation and come up with recommendations that

are the responsibility of the department to implement. the arbs make very clear chris steevepks who probably knew more about libya than anyone else in our government, did not see a direct threat of an attack in this nature and scale despite the overall trend of security problems that we faced. and i have to add neither did the intelligence community. the arb makes that very clear that the intelligence community also did not really zero in on the connection between the deteriorating threat environment in eastern libya and in benghazi and a direct threat on our compound. so we have work to do. we have work to do inside the department. we have work to do in our partners and d.o.d. and intelligence community to constantly be taking in

information, making sure it does get to the right people that it isn't somehow stove piped or stalled but that it does rise to decision makers and i'm committed to improving every way that i can every everything that the arb told us to do in assessing our intelligence, and i think it's fair to say, congressman, that we have to do this now, because i predict we're going to be, as we saw in algeria, seeing all kinds of aas i metric threats not just to our government facilities but to our private sector facilities. in tunisia we protected our ambassador but our school was badly damaged. so we have to take a broader view and i think the arb gives us a start but it's not the whole story. >> >> thank you very much for your contribution securing america's place in the world the last four years and for your contribution

to world peace. the report does identify specifically people who were found to have engaged in the department in systematic failures and deficiencies. i want to be clear about this, you were not one of those people, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> it was identified earlier that a report dating from the 1990's had said that the secretary should take a personal and active role in security. have you done that in four years at the state department? >> i have been very attuned to the environment in which threats are occurring, the intelligence that is available, certainly not the specific request and decision making which rests with the security professionals. >> regarding the security professionals is there anybody now in existence in the